Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 679, 11 May 1859, Page 4

The connection between theory and practice is at all times difficult to establish. The propounder of a no/elty.in any art or science, from mechanism upwards, must bring his examples of its successful working1, must offer tests for any one who, doubts to try, before the new principles which he enunciates will gain acceptance at all. On the other hand, the proper analysis of the principle which lies at the bottom of every practice is a difficult task, in many cases reserved only for the highest order of intellect granted to man. AH systems, plans, and methods in common operation are, so beset by accidental circumstances on which they seem to depend, that it requires no common penetration to discover what is-the real cause why they fail or why they are successful. In the highest of human seienees,'the science of Government, has it happened that one of the hundreds of constitutions reasoned out by the brain of man has been brought into active operation successfully, and in such a manner that no doubt could exist as to the success being the operation of the guiding principle adopted by the theorist, and not the result simply of the circumstances attending its development ? On the other hand, an empirical constitution, one that experience and not foresight has pieced together, such as that of England, may be shown by political philosophers to be based on a principle, to possess a * theory;' but what sane statesman will assert that the theory shall be workable though stripped of the circumstances in which it is found in operation, or will name another set of circumstances in which he will guarantee its success ? Sufficient praise it is to any statesman that, with the help of both theory and practice, both forethought and experience, he has discovered a method of government applicsv ble to the circumstances of the community, and by the help of those circumstances resulting in success.

Now, what is true of governments and constitutions in general is true also of all schemes of polity which have to be devised 'by men, where the co-operation and the submission of men is required, and where the benefit of all who come under its operation is the desired object. Even so business-like a matter as the sale of waste lands in the Province of Canterbury must be considered as being subject to the same law. This case, indeed, which we propose to say a word about in imitation of our correspondent l New Chum/ is particularly suited for the consideratbn of political philosophers, for we have the theory upon-svliich the system was undoubtedly constructed to compare with the system itself in operation; and we have some of 'the result under our eye by which to measure the amount of skill shown in its construction.

' New-Chum' has caught a little bit of truth and cruelly tortured it. Let us say first that he speaks like a man who knows something' of this province practically, but not like a Canterbury man; certainly not like one who gave in his adhesion to the Canterbury theory at first, and might claim credit for having'since helped to work it out. He is quite guiltless of the crime imputed to Canterbury men—of being perfectly satisfied with Canterbury, and with himself because belonging to Canterbury. New-Chum is aware of the prosperity of the province, but he is very much dissatisfied with the reasons given for the existence of that prosperity. "No thanks"—he exclaims—-" to those who suggested placing' four times the price on Canterbury land that is placed on the land of neighbouring provinces: the land itself has the merit, for it is four times as good." This assertion he supports by two sets of facts, from which he supposes it to be inferred—first that if the other provinces of New Zealand; had placed a -price of £2 an acre on their land they would not have prospered at ailsecondly that even in Canterbury the high price has not produced the good effects which the propounders of the high price theory .promised. True, Canterbury land, from circumstances, taken as a whole is worth more than that of her neighbours. Suppose we even assume, what it would be hard to prove, that for agricultural purposes it is worth as much more as its price is higher : that is, four times as much. We are not at all disposed to quarrel with the statement. This we will allow to be true: it is the little bit of truth. But the fact, be it ever so patent now, only confirms the credit due to those who with little or no experience knew as much six years ago and determined to charge a proportionate price. Theory apart, to have recognised the fact was a proof of good judgment on the part of those who drafted the land regulations. It is not every merchant who takes goods into a new market who can discover at once their relative value to similar articles offered by his competitors. But the step would have been not less judicious if only a very small portion of this province had been oi the highest value, and the remainder not worth more than the average of other provinces. It was wise to make the price of the best land the price of the whole, that while the first was being disposed of the last might be growing in value—by the alteration of position—by the withdrawal of the comparison between it and a better quality in the market—by the increase of value of the better quality, after passing into private hands, drawing up the inferior quality with it—or by the simple commercial effect of a thinned market. Now if our neighbours, when their land came into their-own hands, had done tho same thinw they would perhaps have done well; thenbest land (without doubt equal in quality to much that has been sold here) would have fetched the best, price, and after that v.'ould

probably have given an additional value to the remainder: or if it was necessary to reduce the price of the remainder, that operation could have been performed with exceeding ease, dropping gradually in proportion to the diminishing value of the land in the market.

But this is the mere salesman's view of the question, one that would be taken by a person anxious to dispose of articles in which he would have no interest after their sale. But this is not all—indeed it is only part, a small part —of the case before us. Say what' New ' will, the theorist pure and simple has a share of the work to do in arranging a good scheme by which the waste lands of a colony are to be sold. The success of Canterbury is due, in no slight measure, first to the propounder of the ' sufficient price for land' theory-; and secondly to those practical settlers of Canterbury who saw the correctness1 of the theory and seized it as their guiding principle. ■ What has been the principle of our neighbour provinces, when we come to analyze their land schemes? To put a low price upon land, so that everyone shall be able to obtain it. And what was the Wakefield principle ? To put a price upon it equal to its value, so that everyone shall have the benefit of the sale. In the latter case, does not the_occupier get quid pro quo for his money, and also, in common with all his neighbours, receive the proceeds of the transaction?, In ; ,the fbi'mer- case, does not one man get much of the state's property at little cost, and the rest little of the benefit? A downright, actual, practical fact this turns out to be, in spite of sneers at theorists. In bur own province a sale was once made of 60,000 acres to one man. He got all that land; and the rest of the people of the province'received £30,000. Under a new law, some 00,000 acres have been sold to all sorts of people, who are quite contented with getting their moneys worth, and the rest of the people of the province have received about £100,000. Which transaction has done the greater good to the settlers at large ? Again, foresight is to be praised for having anticipated experience.

That piece of clap-trap of 'New-Chum's' about l the industrious settler'must not pass unnoticed. Poor persecuted farmer; at home groaning over peace and plenty; in Canterbury, zgroaning at having to pay for his land 'Something like what it is worth'! New Chum pities the farmer for having to sink a portion of his capital in the purchase of his land—by his own showing at a fair rate for the value received. He laments that the outlay is so great as to cripple him in his future operations. Now, if a farmer is not to pay for the land—the 'raw material'-^what is he to pay for ? and if he is not to pay the value of the land, how much is he to pay? must he get it for nothing 1 must the farmer's trade be the only one that a man can go into without capital ? and is the land valuable at all if it is not worth buying for agriculture ?

But 'New Chum' brings forward an ex-cecding-lj ingeniOUS proof of liowthc iiig'k price of land is prejudicial- to the farming interest. It is this. The high price swells the Government funds; Goyernment, to spend their funds, must employ, labour, and to get it, where labour is scarce, must offer high wages high wages spoil the farmer's profits, and labour abstracted from them leaves the farmer helpless. This is really a home-thrust; after this, no farmer should ever think of going* to a colony which is likely to be prosperous ; a poverty-stricken district is the place for the agriculturist! This, after all, is the true reason why the British farmer has always been in such distress. ' New Chum's' letter shall go home to the Earl of Derby with this passage underlined: his lordship will take the hint, ruin England, save the farmer, abandon the Protectionist theory, and and appoint 'New Chum' his Chancellor of the Exchequer, vice Disraeli resigned in despair!

Only, we think, in a colony, if the Government had no money, there would be little chance of immigration, and things would somewhat stagnate. If labour was not in request, many poor fellows would be driven to farming; and in these bad times for agricultural produce, with excessive competition added, all and sundry might make, a great mess of it. If Government had no money, or could or would employ no labour, the want of roads might be felt by farmers as well as others. And even if the Government found itself accumulating such heaps of cash that in despair it gave the land away for nothing, some -calamity like the increase, of customs revenue might overflow the treasury again, force the Government to spend more money still, and—and—destroy l New-Chums' last splendid argument altogether. :

• No, if the agricultural interest is not the most prosperous in Canterbury, it is simply or chiefly because the market is uncertain, one expensive to get at, and not a very good one when reached. Good roads and low wages would save farmers' money, but they would not do evei'3'thing; the two evils, with several others, are inseparable from a young country, and must be endured; to try to cure them by reducing the price of land from what it is honestly worth would be madness. This appeals to everyone's common sense. Let us give honour where honour is justly due. If we are successful, it is because we are what we are. We have good land, and we ask and obtain a good price for it. For that we have done the latter we may justly ascribe great credit to those whose prudence and foresight discovered how to do it; though for the former/ New-Chum •' does well in reminding us that our thanks are due.to a higher power and a wiser providence than mortal man can boast.